![]() The “big brains” business was clear enough the regular, explicit references to it start to grate like a one-note orchestra. However, this book overplays its didactic elements and, far too often, it feels as though Vonnegut, through the (perhaps not entirely reliable) mask of Leon Trout, harangues us. (2)The mind-softening plausibility of Vonnegut’s central argument-which, as I note next, he unfortunately explicates too often. (1) The chain of events that lead the central group of characters to become the ancestors of the future human race. The dead son of an unsuccessful science-fiction writer chronicles the future of the human race, from the end of the world as we know it in 1986 to a very different era, one million years later. In short: the future of humanity falls in the hands of the people who most likely would have been voted first off the island. Uneven but often brilliant, it would prove one of his last really good books. ![]() ![]() Critics often called his 1985 novel, Galápagos a comeback. Vonnegut wrote his best novels in the 1960s his work started to founder in the 1970s. If a bunch of them are lying around the beach, and one of them farts, everybody else laughs and laughs, just as people would have done a million years ago. And people still laugh about as much as they ever did…. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |